Lord Geddes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether personal taxation of an average earner has increased over the last eight years; and, if so, by how much.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, none of those further questions arise from the original Question put to me, but I shall do my best. I responded in terms of income tax because, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, well knows, other forms of personal taxation like value added tax are not capable of the same analysis as income tax. When someone pays value added tax, you do not know whether they have children, whether they are single or whether they are married. You cannot know the incidence in the same way and thus VAT and other forms of taxation cannot simply be added to income tax and tax credits.
	In response to the second part of the noble Lord's question, no, I cannot confirm what he has said. The claim sounds most implausible and I do not know where it has come from. I shall be delighted to investigate it in more detail.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not constrained in my willingness to make party political points by those made by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, but I am constrained by my willingness on the whole to answer the Question and not to stray wide of it.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, since the Minister is so anxious to respond to questions about income tax specifically, will he give an undertaking that, if the Government of which he is such a distinguished Member are re-elected, there will be no increase in the top rate of income tax?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that if we look at the record of the previous Conservative government, we see that in the 1990s they froze personal allowances for three years on the trot, they froze the capital gains tax annual exemption limit for four years in succession, and they froze the level at which higher rate tax kicks in for four years in succession? Will he confirm that we now enjoy the lowest rates of corporation tax in our history, the lowest effective rates of capital gains tax since that tax was introduced, and enjoy basic and starting rates of income tax lower than those which we inherited, and the lowest for decades? Can he also give us his view, when the question is put asking who can be trusted on the economy and taxation, on how the country will answer?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will not confirm those figures, but I will tell noble Lords why that is so. First, there is a difficulty because the method of counting offences has changed. Noble Lords will know that, for example, offences such as assault and harassment were added to the list of notifiable offences. Secondly, I refer to offences that used to be counted as one offence per victim. For example, two groups of four attacking each other could now constitute eight offences where previously it would have been one of affray. That is why I cannot confirm that there has been an increase because the way in which we count these offences has changed. In addition, we have made a concerted effort to enhance the reporting of offences such as domestic violence—high levels of common assault arise from that—and sexual offending. For those reasons we hope that the figures are increasing.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the Minister will be well aware that for the past seven years the Government have failed to implement Parliament's requirement for a central register of guns and of applications. Does she remember that her noble friend Lord Rooker said on 27 January:
	"Our expectation is that we will probably be ready for roll-out by July this summer"?—[Official Report, 27/1/05; col. 1389.]
	As there have been so many failures to meet undertakings given, will the noble Baroness confirm that that is still likely?

The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, will the noble Baroness comment on how effective she considers police and community initiatives have been, for example, the police initiative, Operation Goodwood, in Manchester and the faith communities' initiatives, Street Pastors? Will she also comment on the effectiveness over the past 12 months of the outcome of the Home Office conference, Connected, which was held in January 2004?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware—I am sure that it has been debated on a number of occasions in this House—that the 43 police areas have different systems of IT; and that PITO is pressing ahead as hard as it can to resolve the difficulties, which are principally related to the in-force information systems and how they correlate. Those matters are being energetically looked at, not least because I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and others will continue to press this issue, rightly, until they get an answer. That is a helpful spur to those of us who come to the Dispatch Box.

Lord Renton: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind my experience? I have three daughters. The two elder ones are very bright and have done well; they not only married well but they have done well financially. My third and youngest daughter, who cannot talk, cannot walk and is severely disabled, has cost much more in her upbringing than her two sisters have. Therefore, it seems that the Government should be favourable towards the parents of disabled children.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the process through which the grant is applied for is seen to be complicated? At the very least, if this review does not propose a root and branch reform of that process, will the Government give us a guarantee that key workers will be allocated to this process, so that people who need the money will get it and not lose it merely on page 43(b), section 6?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the view that this is a complicated grant for those who apply for it and for those who operate it. I have had personal experience of assisting constituents, and I know how difficult it can be. That is one of the reasons why the review is taking place, so that we can make the process more transparent and easier for those who need to access an important source of funding.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when his colleague John Spellar announced the abolition of the means test for this grant for parents of disabled children in Northern Ireland, he said:
	"There is a strong moral argument for ensuring that any barriers disabled children may face in getting facilities they need are removed".
	Does the noble Lord not believe that that covers the rest of the country as well?

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has already mentioned the considerable extra costs of raising a disabled child, which is at least three times that of other children. Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of families would pass any fair means test that took those true costs into account? Would it not be sensible entirely to abolish this damaging and extremely stressful means test?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on 16 March, European Union Foreign Ministers adopted the mandate for Croatia's EU accession negotiations, but postponed the opening of negotiations themselves because of concerns about the lack of full co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. That followed confirmation by the ICTY chief prosecutor that the negative assessment in her November 2004 report to the United Nations Security Council remained unchanged. Foreign Ministers made it clear that the EU stood ready to open negotiations with Croatia as soon as co-operation with the ICTY was full.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to increase the funding available to higher education institutions in Northern Ireland, while safeguarding access for students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.
	It is the Government's aim to increase funding for higher education in Northern Ireland in a way that takes account of two key principles: first, a larger share of the cost of higher education should fall to the direct beneficiaries of a third-level education and, secondly, a first-rate higher education system should be available to everyone who has the ability to benefit from it. The order introduces provisions broadly in line with those to come into force in England under the Higher Education Act 2004.
	In the quality of their teaching and research, universities and higher education institutions in Northern Ireland compare favourably with the better higher education institutions in the rest of the United Kingdom. The challenge for the Government is to ensure that, in the face of a changing higher education sector in England, the Northern Ireland institutions continue to contribute to economic growth, develop and enhance research excellence, fulfil their social and cultural role, provide access to high-quality education for local students and, in general, continue to compete favourably with their GB counterparts.
	Now that the Higher Education Act 2004 is on the statute book, we must respond to it in a way that benefits Northern Ireland most and does not put Northern Ireland students or universities at a disadvantage. The Act, which has its origins in the White Paper, covers a number of important developments in higher education. Of those, the introduction of variable fees and their impact on students and the higher education institutions are key issues for Northern Ireland.
	Last year, the Department for Employment and Learning held a policy consultation on proposals to increase university funding through the introduction of variable tuition fees. The consultation also covered proposals to introduce access agreements and a review of the student complaints system. Following the policy consultation, the draft legislative proposals were issued for public consultation. There was significant interest in and reaction to the proposals, particularly in relation to variable fees. Much of that reaction was critical, but no viable alternative was proposed.
	I turn to the detail of the draft order. Part II sets out the provisions for student fees. They will enable higher education institutions to set their own fees up to a basic amount specified in regulations. If institutions wish to charge fees above that rate, they can do so only if they have in force a plan—also known as an access agreement under this part of the order—approved by the Department for Employment and Learning, and then only up to a higher amount also specified in regulations. The department will monitor approved plans. Should an institution breach its plan, the department may choose not to renew, or it may impose financial sanctions.
	In Part III, the order includes provisions for preventing student loan debt forming part of a bankrupt's estate. That reflects the non-commercial nature of a student loan and closes an existing loophole whereby student loans are written off on bankruptcy.
	The order provides for the sharing of information between student support authorities with the consent of the individual. That will streamline the process, in keeping with the Government's aim of requiring individuals to provide information once only.
	The order includes provisions for facilitating the deferral of payment of tuition fees by allowing student loan payments to be made directly to institutions, so that they can receive fee payments up front and students can repay later.
	Although the provisions follow the Higher Education Act, the legislation has been tailored to reflect specific needs in Northern Ireland. The draft order does not replicate all the provisions of the Act.
	With regard to access agreements, the order provides that, in Northern Ireland, the Department for Employment and Learning will undertake the access regulatory function and will take advice as necessary from the Office for Fair Access. On student complaints, the Government have accepted the weight of argument from consultees in favour of change and of making the system more independent of the institutions. However, the intention is to retain the visitor system in Northern Ireland until the institutions are restored and to leave the final decision on the way forward to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	In considering the introduction of variable fees in Northern Ireland, it is important to remember that up to 30 per cent of Northern Ireland students go to universities in Great Britain: some to do courses that are not available locally; some to widen their horizons; and others because their grades are not good enough to meet the entry requirements in Northern Ireland. Whatever the reason, unless we act now to introduce a deferred fee system many of those students or their families will be forced to pay up to £3,000 up front each year from 2006. It would not be right to allow students from Northern Ireland to face such a barrier. It would be perverse that Northern Ireland students should pay more to improve standards in English universities while their counterparts studying in Northern Ireland paid less to invest in the future success of their own universities. It is even more unacceptable that the Government should provide the additional funding to support that, in effect funding institutions in England while denying the same level of fee income to Northern Ireland institutions.
	The initial reaction of many people to the introduction of deferred fees is that they will add to the existing burden of student debt. However, a student loan is one of the most generous forms of credit available. In contrast to commercial loans, the only interest charged is the rate of inflation, so that we can be sure that the loan repaid is equal in real terms to the amount borrowed. Graduates will have to pay the money back only when they can afford to do so. If income falls below £15,000, repayments stop. No one will be penalised for taking time out for any reason, such as to have a family, to work part-time or if he or she becomes unemployed.
	The Government want to increase the funding available to the higher education sector in Northern Ireland in a way that ensures that up-front fees are abolished and that graduates take on a greater share of the costs. However, the Government also recognise the need to ensure that financial help continues to be provided for students who need it most by maintaining a system of student support that is as favourable as present arrangements.
	In addition, institutions charging variable fees will have to introduce access agreements, which will require them to tell students and prospective students what help is available. It will include a commitment to provide an access bursary to students from low-income backgrounds.
	If our higher education institutions in Northern Ireland are to sustain—indeed build upon—the high standards of teaching and research in the increasingly competitive global higher education sector, they need the extra investment that the proposals will bring. The Government firmly believe that that is the best way to secure the future of our highly valued higher education sector in Northern Ireland and to ensure access to all those who have the potential to benefit from higher education, regardless of background or personal circumstances.
	It is the intention that, subject to the approval of both Houses, the order can be made at a Privy Council meeting by the end of the Session. That will give time for preparations to be made so that it can become operative from September 2006 to coincide with the start of the academic year. I beg to move.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I speak in support of the reasoned amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. As he said, when the Assembly was in operation, it rejected the idea of top-up fees, and yet the Government are seeking to impose an English policy on Northern Ireland. Of course, both Wales and Scotland have chosen not to go down the top-up fees route.
	It is quite inappropriate for the Government to dictate to Northern Ireland in this way. The measure is also inappropriate for Northern Ireland because, as a region, it has larger than average family size and lower than average family income compared with the UK as a whole.
	At a Limavady College of Further and Higher Education graduation, the acting vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster, of which I was once vice-chancellor, Professor Richard Barnett, said:
	"The Government must recognise that debt aversion is a greater roadblock to participation in higher education in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the UK. It must also accept the evidence that the proposed fees, without a proper student maintenance package, will significantly affect participation from average middle class families as well as those from social disadvantaged groups".
	He went on to say:
	"Academic ability and not affordability must govern access to higher education in Northern Ireland".
	We have heard all about the palaver of the access requirements that will be applied to the Northern Ireland universities. If that is the case, fairly those universities will want an increase in the number of students from the private sector because almost all the students in Northern Ireland come from state schools.
	Northern Ireland has the highest participation rate in tertiary education in the UK and it has a most highly trained labour force. Both those will be put at risk if top-up fees are introduced. I beg of the Government to think again.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, while what I have to say in my opening remarks my not be directly related to this order, one cannot touch on the topic of third-level education in Northern Ireland without taking the opportunity to condemn, without equivocation, those thuggish students whose behaviour in the area of Belfast known as "the Holy Lands" brings misery to ordinary residents in the area.
	I hope that government, through the Department for Employment and Learning and with the co-operation of the universities, will move positively to bring this dangerous misbehaviour to an end and to penalise the minority of students who make it more difficult to argue the case that I espouse here today.
	The majority of our university students are hard-working and responsible and, as noble Lords will be aware, this order, when put to a vote, was defeated in another place on 20 January by 11 votes to 10. The Government either expected the absence of the DUP, whose members routinely do not turn up for committee debates, or perhaps some Labour Members were as keen to see the Government deliver the message they really believe in via the back door of Northern Ireland. Either way, defeated the Government were, and I sincerely hope that they have heeded that message. That would be a practical demonstration of what I have heard argued by the Government in your Lordships' House on several occasions in the recent past about the primacy of the other place.
	Again, I must register my total frustration and dissatisfaction with the way in which this legislation has been dealt with in the absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Had the Assembly been in place, our regional representatives would have debated this issue at Stormont, as it was debated in Wales and Scotland, and they would have passed legislation that was appropriate for Northern Ireland. Hence, I am surely justified in repeating the call by my colleagues in another place to set aside this order and to leave this issue to be considered at some future date by Northern Ireland's elected representatives.
	There is no doubt that over the past 10 years university education has expanded rapidly and more students are undertaking university education than ever before. That does not, however, mean that more students and parents than ever before can afford the spiralling costs. It is fundamentally important, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom, that those from financially less well off backgrounds do not fall by the wayside and lose their right to higher education due to the market forces that now dominate the higher education sector.
	We all understand the arguments for extending student loans for those who can afford them, but extending such measures across the board will certainly out-price many students from university education altogether. Noble Lords should remember that, although we have full employment in Northern Ireland, we do not have parity with Great Britain in the level of earnings.
	As my noble friend Lord Molyneaux has already pointed out, all Northern Ireland political parties are united in opposition to this order, as may be wished in other spheres. What is the sense of a bright young student winning a place to go to Queen's or the University of Ulster, and then having to drop out or defer because he cannot afford the college fees?
	There is a duty of care on the Government. They will be held to account by the electorate on their promises to create opportunity for all in the higher education sector and to ensure that, on the one hand, talented students from less privileged schools are encouraged to apply to the best universities and that, on the other, the state affords them the financial help to do so. That means the Government setting aside substantial financial aid to ensure that students from less financially privileged backgrounds have the potential in real terms, not just in theory, to achieve their full potential in our education system.
	Our university system is the envy of Europe. If one looks at the world ranking of universities, in overall terms only UK institutions are serious competitors in a US-dominated world of education. It is great that, due to their global reputation for excellence, our universities—Queen's and the University of Ulster—attract students from the four corners of the globe. That is good for our economy, prestige and education system. But I implore this Government to ensure that our own students are not priced out of this market due to that excellence and the demand for places at these universities by the world's brightest youngsters.
	The Ulster Unionist Party remains fully committed to maintaining free and fair access to university for all. Can the Government detail the bursaries that they intend to establish in order to ensure that such access is maintained if they continue in their effort to railroad through top-up fees?
	I know many young people who do not have the benefit of family wealth as they set off on their university careers. Many students work 20 or more hours a week to make ends meet while they are taking their degrees. Of course, students should pay their way. I had to do so 50 years ago, and I would be the first to encourage young people to get a part-time job while studying. But it borders on pointless when keeping a job in a local pub becomes more of a priority then attending lectures and writing essays. At the same time, those who can afford it will be spending their free time undertaking unpaid internships and work that benefits them academically.
	Do not let this be another classic example of how direct rule fails Northern Ireland. I urge the House to reject this order and to vote for the amendment.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, I know nothing of Northern Ireland and we have had an authoritative statement from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, about the circumstances there. My only reason for intervening is that we are veering into the general issue of whether top-up fees are helpful or disastrous for universities. In the rest of the United Kingdom, Scotland is still considering them, but Wales is switching to the system.
	The view of those in charge of our universities and of the organisation that represents them is that there is a desperate problem of underfunding. We cannot keep up the standard of universities—I am sure that this applies in Northern Ireland—without a complete change of policy. The alternatives are a major increase in direct taxation, which the Liberal Democrat party proposes—but its arithmetic has been questioned—or some kind of share that gives a substantial increase in funding and makes provision for the means of students. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, did not show a full awareness of the schemes for bursaries and remissions that mean that the increase in fees for poorer students will be negligible.
	Universities in England have already accepted and welcomed this proposal. University institutions in Wales have also accepted it. I think, to coin a phrase, that there is no alternative. I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, that there are special social and economic circumstances in Northern Ireland that change the context of the argument. But it seems to me to be beyond dispute that the general principle of top-up fees is essential for maintaining the international quality and competitiveness of British universities—and I speak as a former vice-chancellor.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, like many of my other colleagues, I know little about education in Northern Ireland. However, the Government are committed to devolved government and to take such an autocratic act —as they are taking over grammar schools in Northern Ireland—is wrong. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. It is an autocratic act. Considering that they are negotiating, they should listen to the parties in Northern Ireland. Since a devolved assembly is proposed, it is—dare I say this in a quite emotional way?—quite disgraceful to impose the abolition of grammar schools and this measure. Therefore my vote is decided.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I know that this a highly emotive issue, as was made clear when we discussed the Higher Education Act in this House. Perhaps I may also say to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that I welcome his opening remarks. Despite the differences that there have been across the House on Northern Ireland business, our debates have always been conducted in a constructive way. I entirely appreciate that the noble Lord's disagreements with the policy are not disagreements with me personally although, of course, I speak on behalf of the Government.
	I recognise that it would have been preferable for this legislation to be taken forward by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, was also concerned about that issue. However, I emphasise that the policy proposals and the draft legislation have been fully consulted on in Northern Ireland although, again, I recognise that the outcome of the consultation was negative and the reaction critical. But I also have to say that no viable alternatives were proposed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised a concern about a possible rise in the level of student debt. I recognise that the issue of student debt is a matter of concern to those who believe that the proposal will be a deterrent to higher education, particularly for those from lower income backgrounds. The proposals will make higher education free at the point of access and fair at the point of repayment. No student or parent will have to pay any fees before or while studying at university. Graduates will have to repay only once they start earning over £15,000 and then at a very reasonable rate linked to their income.
	Perhaps I may also say this to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux. The key point is that there is no "do nothing" option for Northern Ireland. The Higher Education Act will fundamentally change the way in which higher education is funded in England. In the absence of this order no fee deferral arrangements exist which would enable the Department for Employment and Learning to provide funding to the institutions in the first instance to the extent that students choose to defer their fees. That means that for almost 7,000 Northern Ireland students who go to English universities they would have to pay the new fees, up to £3,000 up front, each year, from 2006.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, was concerned about applying English solutions to a Northern Ireland issue. We have taken the opportunity to tailor this legislation to reflect the specific needs of Northern Ireland. For example, we have not replicated the provisions in relation to the Office for Fair Access and the establishment of an office of the independent adjudicator to hear student complaints. The noble Lord was also concerned about comparisons with Scotland and Wales. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Morgan picked up on these points and sought to clarify them.
	The Scottish Executive has announced that new students studying at a Scottish university will have to pay higher tuition fees from 2006–07. The level of tuition fee has not yet been set but is expected to be between £1,700 and £1,900 each year. This would mean that a four-year degree course in Scotland would cost approximately the same as a three-year course in England. Of course, there may also be a separate, higher tuition fee level set for medical students.
	As regards Wales, a review is currently being undertaken under Professor Rees of fees and student support. That review will report in due course. Decisions will then be taken with respect to the ongoing fee level in Wales.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised the importance of looking at socio-economic differences. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, spoke of spiralling costs for students. I am of course aware of the socio-economic differences between Northern Ireland and England and that there is a higher participation rate in Northern Ireland. The proposals will help across the range, but will seek to ensure that access to higher education is protected for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There will be no financial barrier to students choosing a particular course or university as they do not have to pay before they study or while studying.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not accept that. Universities have made it clear that they may charge different variable fees for different courses and may not charge the same fee across the board. We could debate the issue endlessly across the Dispatch Box, but I think that my point is right: it depends on where universities choose to set the variable fee. Of course if they set the fee at the higher rate, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is quite right: the comparison is not an accurate one. It depends on the point at which that variable fee is made. That is the point I was making.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, in particular asked what the access agreements would cover and what would be included in bursaries. An access agreement should cover, as a minimum, university plans for bursaries and other financial support for students; any outreach work planned by the university to encourage more potential students to consider higher education; financial information on funding available for prospective students; and university objectives to measure how its plans to safeguard and improve access are being achieved.
	On the level of student support, it is proposed to apply similar arrangements to those proposed for England. For example, there will no longer be a requirement to pay tuition fees in advance. Instead, students could defer payment until they leave higher education. Since there will be fee deferral arrangements, the fee remission grant will be discontinued. A single larger non-repayable departmental higher education bursary of up to £3,200 will be available instead. Students can, if they wish, choose to use that to pay part or all their tuition fees. The current maintenance loan will be retained.
	My noble friend Lord Morgan and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made reference to the importance of quality and competitiveness in universities. I agree with my noble friend Lord Morgan about the importance of changing policy and about consistency across the board in relation to that. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has extensive experience of these matters—far more than I have. I listened to the noble Lord's remarks with interest. I was struck not only by the advantages set out by the noble Lord of this kind of system, but also by his remarks about the importance of there being an equitable system.
	The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised the issue of the Open University and the commitments that were made during discussion of the Higher Education Bill. My understanding is that the arrangements for part-time students in Northern Ireland are not being changed, but that within the order there is a reserved power to provide part-time students with fee loans which would enable them to defer paying their fees if such a policy direction were decided at a later date.
	On the possibility of extending fee deferral to part-time students, the Open University has been commissioned to carry out a survey into the incomes of part-time students and the costs they incur while studying. I was struck by the noble Lord saying that he had recently received a communication on this from the Open University. I should be concerned if there were some cross-communication here, but my understanding is that the Open University is conducting this research on behalf of the Government.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment proposes as a matter of principle to ensure that provision be made for retention of the extant revenue independence and methods as regards investigation and enforcement, in the interests of the taxpayer, under the merger with Customs and Excise to form the HMRC—having particular regard to the coercive powers of investigation of Customs and Excise.
	The amendment reflects the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and noble Lords well versed in the expertise of the relevant arcane arts—the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Sheldon, Lord Newby and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. My noble friend warned against resort to draconian powers under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, referring to the sensitivity of information and the importance of a proportionate approach, which had attracted attention in the first JCHR report, as engaging Article 8. My noble friend also sought clarification on the making of extra-statutory concessions.
	The substance of the common concern arises from the diversity of culture and working methods as between the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, a veritable past master in these arts, said:
	"It is not easy to see how these two different kinds of expertise will survive, still less be transferred with success from one part of a new department to another. It is still more difficult, given the present level of work by each of these two departments which are under considerable strain".—[Official Report, 7/2/05; col. 597.]
	This amendment seeks to retain that diversity of culture for the Revenue. For example, there is the writ of assistance, which is only available to Customs and Excise on application to the Queen's Remembrancer, a senior Master sitting in the Law Courts. Once granted, it serves as a warrant for forcible entry and as a general search warrant, free from further judicial control—even if nothing sought is found. I am anxious that those procedures should not be resorted to on Revenue enforcement.
	The amendment is not concerned with extra statutory concessions as such, but only with retention of the Revenue culture on investigation and enforcement, which is, and was, a matter of common concern in your Lordships' House. On 4 March the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sent a long and complicated letter in reply to a request from my noble friend Lady Noakes concerning extra statutory concessions, which, with the greatest respect, would not appear to be relevant to the limited scope of this amendment. I have the document with me, but it is far too complex to read. I beg to move.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, throughout our consideration of the Bill we have raised concerns about how the new HMRC will operate—in particular, whether the Inland Revenue's approach, which might be characterised as "business-friendly", certainly in comparison with Customs and Excise, will be preserved in the new organisation.
	The integration has never fully been explained in terms of its impact on taxpayers. We believe that the thoughts that lie behind my noble friend's amendments are very sound. I am less clear that the form of the amendment captures what we need, but I freely accept that my legal knowledge is way below that of my noble friend, so I shall be interested to hear the debate on his amendment.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, both in principle and in detail. I suggest—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has anticipated what I might say—that the amendment is defective. However, if it were rewritten to achieve what I believe to be the noble Lord's aim, it would in fact prevent the new department doing exactly what the O'Donnell review recommended it should do, which I have understood up to now has been widely supported.
	I shall examine what the amendment provides. It refers to,
	"revenue independence and methods as regards investigation and enforcement".
	As I understand it, from what the noble Lord has said, he wants to preserve what he regards as the lighter touch that folklore has it the Revenue provides, compared with that of the draconian Customs and Excise.
	I want to make three points. First, I want to challenge the assumption on which the noble Lord puts forward that proposition; secondly, I want to point out why the amendment is defective; and, thirdly, I want to come back to why this would defeat the object of the Bill. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if it achieved what I believe the noble Lord wants to achieve, it would wreck what is proposed in the Bill. I hope your Lordships would not want to see that.
	As far as the assumptions are concerned, it is wrong to characterise Revenue powers as soft and Customs powers as draconian. Customs and Excise has some powers to act rapidly, powers that are appropriate to it because of its duty to prevent smuggling and illegal importations, but which would not be appropriate for certain functions carried out by the Revenue. I have talked before about the ring-fencing of powers, and the powers used would be appropriate to the function being carried out.
	Secondly, I do not think it is right to characterise the two departments as having contrasting cultures. Difference of approach can be found within the organisations. Those who have had dealings with them would probably agree that the approach of the Special Compliance Office of the Inland Revenue, which deals with serious tax fraud, is different from that of officers in the child benefit office or the tax credit office. That flows from the nature of the functions they are carrying out.
	Surely the key point here is not the variations people perceive in the present departments, but the powers that are appropriate to the functions they are carrying out. Noble Lords who have participated in the passage of this Bill so far know that a review of those powers started last week. It has been referred to throughout the passage of the Bill here and in another place and will ensure ultimately that the powers that are available are appropriate to the functions.
	Culture is very much in the eye of the beholder. I was struck by the fact that, at one stage in our debate, there seemed to be a difference of view between noble Lords as to which was the softer touch, Revenue or Customs. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, who had experience from having worked in Customs and Excise, took a different view on that from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who had lots of experience of dealing with it professionally as the Inland Revenue across the table. I am told, however, that only last week my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a representation pleading for the Inland Revenue to be more like Customs and Excise.
	Thirdly, the management of the new department is there to ensure that the over-arching culture of the department is built on the soundest traditions of public service of the predecessor departments. That is a serious point. We have previously agreed that what is most important in the culture of both departments, which they share, is honesty and integrity. Plainly, that will continue.
	I have just been handed a note, which I had previously seen, saying that the review had started last week. Either I misread it or it is incorrect, but, in any event, I ask noble Lords to ignore what I said about the review having started last week. It has not.
	Regarding the technical defects, with respect, I do not see how the words used by the noble Lord capture what he is trying to enact as the sense of current Inland Revenue practice. It is not possible to prescribe culture by words in legislation. There is no detail, if I may be permitted respectfully to say so, in the amendment on how the culture of the Revenue is to be preserved. The amendment just states:
	"Provision shall be made to ensure that revenue independence and methods . . . are retained".
	The only way this could be achieved in practice would be by retaining separate management chains for the functions that were inherited from each of the old departments. That would prevent the collaborative working and integration that this Bill is all about.
	I suppose that what the noble Lord means by the word "independence" is exactly that. While there would be integration, the Revenue should remain independent. That is directly contrary to the whole thrust and purpose of the Bill, which has been widely supported, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and many others. To enact something effective—which, with respect, this amendment is not—to keep the Revenue separate would defeat the object of the Bill.
	I hope that all noble Lords will agree that the integration or, if one prefers, the merger—we have debated which word is appropriate—should deliver among other things a better and more flexible use of resources, a more focused approach to compliance throughout the taxation system and improvements to customer service and compliance costs. None of that will be possible if the functions inherited from the Inland Revenue are to be kept in some sort of isolation tank.
	Although I am grateful, as always, to the noble Lord for the thought and care with which he moved his amendment, I am afraid that I cannot accept it, and I would urge your Lordships to reject it, should the noble Lord wish to press it.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I have been patient in listening because it may be that I stood up too quickly and the noble Lord intended to speak before I spoke. In any event, I can deal very briefly with his points.
	On the first, as I have said, what matters is the function for which the power is exercised. The noble Lord is of course right that when you are dealing with a matter of importation or smuggling, you may have to act quickly, and acting quickly often needs a power that is forceful and robust, whereas if you are dealing with matters after the event, you may be able to take a more leisurely approach. That can apply just as much to a Revenue function as to a Customs function, where customs is dealing with something other than importation. We should not try to divide rigidly divide any of those approaches, but recognise that what matters is the functions and the powers that are appropriate to them.
	On the noble Lord's second point, I have repeatedly said in this debate that we entirely recognise that care must be taken, and great thought be given, to the way in which the integration takes place. That is apparent in the workings of the report of Mr Gus O'Donnell that preceded the Bill and in all the other things that I have said about how we propose to go forward and effect the merger.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this amendment is a very different kettle of fish. It would establish a principle. I hope that the drafting is sufficiently clear in this case. Like Amendment No. 1, it is a probing amendment to establish a principle; namely, that once the Bill is enacted, provision shall be made to ensure that,
	"regulations subject to the affirmative approval of each House of Parliament are introduced to afford adequate protection by way of safeguards for use and disclosure of confidential information given by a taxpayer"
	and that,
	"confidential information given by a taxpayer for one purpose shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose, save in pursuance of an order of a court which shall have regard to whether there has been compliance with such safeguards".
	On this matter, which affects the structure of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord and I have already clashed on more than one occasion. On the substance of the amendment, there is a fundamental disagreement between the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. It may be resolved only by your Lordships, as confirmed by the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published only today. Put simply, the first question arising is whether some measures of safeguard for the taxpayer, as recognised by the ECHR, should be included in the Bill, in accordance of the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	The second question is whether confidential information given by a taxpayer should be assured, in accordance with Article 8.2 of the ECHR, by some form of legal control established by the Bill. The final question is whether the HMRC, as a public authority for the purposes of Article 8.2, should interfere with the taxpayer's exercise of this right, except in accordance with the law and, if necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public safety, the well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health, morals and the rights and freedoms of others. Let us face it, none of these exceptions applies—or begins to apply—to the ordinary, run-of-the-mill case of assessing and collecting taxes, and making an arrangement for composition, or otherwise.
	There is little to be said before one comes to some extracts, relevant to this amendment, which I propose to read from the two reports. The first report, as of 2 February, was sent to the Minister with a letter seeking a reasoned response to our reply and conclusions. That is at Appendix 1, on page 30 of our first report—House of Lords Paper 41. The reply, of 10 February, wholly failed to engage with the substance of any of our representations. That was observed in the second report, which maintained and reverted to the advice already given on the first report. In the second report, that letter is included as Appendix 1, on page 26. This is not some idea of mine, although I was admittedly a member of the committee and signed both reports. I do not always sign these reports, unless I agree with them.
	In the first report, No. 41, there are about five or six extracts relevant to this amendment. Paragraph 1.18 states:
	"We would remind the Government that the onus is on it to specify the precise aims which are relied upon in Article 8(2) as justifying the interference with Article 8 rights".
	Paragraph 1.23 states:
	"Our principal concern is with the uncertain scope of the 'public interest disclosure' exception . . . The kinds of purposes for which public interest disclosure is permitted are not . . . defined on the face of the Bill, but left to be specified in regulations made by the Treasury . . . the regulation-making power is extremely wide . . . there is nothing to restrict the Treasury's power to specify a public interest justifying disclosure of confidential information".
	Paragraph 1.24 states:
	"The definitions which have been left to regulations should be on the face of the Bill".
	I think my noble friend Lord Kingsland said as much the other day.
	Paragraph 1.27 states:
	"The Government rely on the fact that when making disclosures of confidential information, HMRC will . . . be under a duty to comply with both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998. While this is legally correct, in practical terms it does not provide an answer to the lack of effective safeguards for the reasons pointed out"—
	in the Newton review—
	"in the context of that Act's provision for public bodies to disclose information to assist criminal investigations".
	What was said in the Newton report applies to this Bill:
	"'The protection offered by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998 seems to us to be illusory since the burden will lie on the individual to complain about the disclosure of their confidential information in circumstances where, almost by definition, he or she will be unlikely to know that disclosure has occurred'".
	Paragraph 1.28 states:
	"The applicability of both the HRA 1998 and the DPA 1998 is therefore no substitute for strong safeguards in the statutory scheme to ensure that the power to disclose confidential information about an individual, of which that individual will generally be unaware, is only exercised in circumstances where it is proportionate to do so".
	Paragraph 1.29 states:
	"Three important safeguards which are desirable in relation to regimes for the disclosure of confidential information are pre- disclosure assessment, prior authorisation and external oversight".
	Paragraph 1.31 states:
	"A general instruction that confidential information can be disclosed in the public interest is not a very satisfactory safeguard for Article 8 rights. It falls far short of being a requirement that disclosure be authorised by a senior person after considering whether, in all the particular circumstances . . . disclosure is justified".
	Finally, paragraph 1.32 states:
	"The Newton report points out that prior authorisation safeguards have traditionally been considered particularly important when an individual is unlikely to know that such powers are being exercised against him. . . . In our view the same applies in relation to the present Bill".
	The letter sent by the chairman neither addressed nor engaged with the argument. The report available today makes that plain, and has about five references relevant to this amendment.
	"Our main concern . . . is to ensure that the legal framework, as set out in the primary legislation, does not confer overbroad discretions to interfere with private life, but limits such powers to interfere by including on the face of the legislation"—
	again, on the face of the legislation—
	"criteria to help ensure that unjustified interferences do not take place . . . We are grateful for the Minister's clarification, but we remain of the view that the discretion conferred by Clause 17(1) is too broad, even when considered alongside the various safeguards contained in the statutory code of confidentiality. In our view, such powers to share information internally should contain on their face the criteria to guide decisions as to whether"—
	I am sorry, I am interrupting a conversation. I should not do that. I thank the noble Lord.
	At paragraph 1.11 it states:
	"We noted that the kinds of purposes for which public interest is permitted are left by the Bill to be defined in regulations".
	The last passage is:
	"We therefore welcome the Minister's clarification . . . but remain concerned at the breadth of power in this Bill to add new categories of circumstances when disclosure can be made to the public . . . For the reasons we gave in our earlier report, we have concerns about relying on internal guidance, which by definition is inaccessible to the public, as the source of more detailed guidance as to what disclosures are proportionate in the circumstances of any particular case".
	It concludes on a rather sad note, but we all felt that it was fair enough:
	"We are disappointed that the Minister in her response has not addressed the merits of any of these suggestions or the substance of our reasoning, but merely asserts that the Bill provides the correct balance and that Article 8 rights are fully respected in a way which enables HMRC to work effectively towards its legitimate aims. We remain of the view expressed in our earlier Report and repeat our call for the Government to give serious consideration to the stronger safeguards we have suggested, none of which, in our view, would unnecessarily impede HMRC in the pursuit of [its] . . . important legitimate aims".
	I beg to move.

Lord Newby: My Lords, in principle Clause 17(1), the provision which is causing the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, so much concern, looks both innocuous and sensible. It allows the newly merged department to use information it collects in respect of one form of tax, for example, to guide how it views that taxpayer's affairs more generally. On first reading it, I welcomed the clause with no demur. However, we have since read the two reports from the Joint Committee in which concerns have been expressed that this provision is too broad.
	What we are really talking about here is the question of proportionality. I should have thought that the "administrative level safeguards" referred to in paragraph 1.8 of the committee's report might well be adequate to address the problem, as the committee suggests. But I fear that even if I were not convinced that those safeguards would do the job, I am certainly not happy with the solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his amendment. He proposes that in every single case in which information given for one purpose is used for another by the newly merged department, it would have to go to court to seek agreement for such information to be used.
	Over the course of a year I imagine that there are literally millions of occasions on which taxpayers' information, particularly on the business side where information is provided on VAT, NIC, PAYE and corporation, needs to be considered together in forming a view about a taxpayer's affairs. Under the amendment, millions of cases would arise where court orders have to be made. Given that, and notwithstanding any support we may have for the views of the Joint Committee, we fear that this amendment fails the practicality test.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Lord. Is he really saying that every inquiry made by the Child Support Agency about the level of income of a particular individual being chased by that agency would require the department, the CSA or the Inland Revenue, as the holder of information since it has access to an employee's tax and insurance details, would have to get a court order? There are hundreds of thousands of such cases every year.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me what the position is under the current rules. I cannot answer that at present, although perhaps in a moment I shall be able to do so. But I want to say to him that, again as I understand it, Clause 20 makes clear that there are two requirements for a disclosure to be made. The disclosure has to be for a purpose of a kind specified in regulations—the noble Lord referred to one of the purposes specified in the draft regulation—but it also has to be made on the commissioners' instructions, which can either be specific or general.
	We have had a debate about "general". If the instruction was specific, it would be specific authorisation of that information on that occasion. "General" obviously allows a degree of class instruction to be given, but, so it seems to me from reading the Bill, it cannot just be a question of the instruction being of a type specified within the regulations.
	The answer to the question is: yes. In the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the officer would have to refer the matter upwards unless it was already covered by a class instruction. It is not enough that it is just in the regulations because they specify the purpose. One has to look at the instruction.
	I was about to say in summary, first, that the instructions will always be given by a senior and competent person who has the appropriate training—that I can clearly say. Secondly, they will be within the criteria set out clearly either in the Bill or in the regulations. Thirdly, I can also tell noble Lords that commissioners will monitor the instructions by ensuring that there are proper records and audit trails.
	I invite noble Lords to accept that those assurances are adequate to meet the concerns, which I understand, and so that this responsible department can do its job in an effective and satisfactory way for the benefit of all the people of this country. Therefore, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Newby: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with two linked matters. Amendment No. 9 relates to placing of the face of the Bill the initial descriptions of disclosure that would be covered. In doing so, the noble Earl is following the recommendation in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was published today.
	As an aside, there are a number of other proposals and recommendations in the Joint Committee report, which we have seen in the past hour or two, that we want to look at and, possibly, respond to at Third Reading. With the imminence of an election, we may be denied the opportunity, which is unfortunate. We have not had a chance to reflect all the views of the Joint Committee in the amendments before us today.
	However, this amendment does reflect the Joint Committee's views and is completely costless. It is difficult to see how the Government could possibly object to it. They are going to legislate, by statutory instrument, to do what this amendment does. The Joint Committee said that it would be better for transparency, and for other reasons, if the provision were on the face of the Bill. All that is required is to take it from secondary legislation and put it on the face of the Bill. It has no substantial effect whatever but it helps the quality of the legislation.
	As for the super-affirmative resolution procedure, the Minister and I disagreed in Committee about the extent to which it was two bites at the cherry. But the key aspect is whether Parliament has the power to amend an order. There are orders that Parliament should be debating properly and, possibly, amending. There are other orders that Parliament should take through the affirmative route, but that are not of such nature that they warrant the super-affirmative approach.
	We had a classic example of this last week when on the same evening we debated the repeal of the Trading Stamps Act—which noble Lords would agree was desirable and therefore did not justify the super-affirmative approach—and the approval of the Operating and Financial Review Regulations, which were a major change to company law and which every body in the country with an interest, but Parliament, has had a chance to amend during the past year.
	There is a class of statutory instruments that are of such a nature that Parliament should have the opportunity to amend them or, in rare cases, to recommend that they are not proceeded with, without using the nuclear weapon that we currently have when statutory instruments come before your Lordships' House. The question is whether, if one accepts this approach—I am not sure that the Minister does as a matter of principle—this area is one for which the super-affirmative approach is necessary.
	On balance, I think that the issues are important enough for Parliament to have the chance to look them properly and, if it is worried about them, to make recommendations about how they might be modified. It is an "on balance" view, but I fall on the side of adopting the approach set out in this amendment; that of using the super-affirmative approach in these cases. Therefore, we will be supporting this amendment.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we support my noble friend's amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the late receipt, for the purposes of this debate, of the latest report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is interesting that, in the space of six weeks from the earlier report on the Bill, we have moved from its sixth report of this Session to its 13th report of this Session. The nature of the legislation that the Government are trying ram through Parliament at the moment is raising so many fundamental issues relating to human rights that we must be very grateful for the work that the Joint Committee is doing on behalf of Parliament in bringing these items to our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right that the report raises further issues that may need further amendments to the Bill. I shall say no more than that I fully support my noble friend.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by noting with considerable pleasure that the official Opposition take the view that the Human Rights Act is something that should be enforced in all ways and at all times.
	In dealing with these amendments, I want to emphasise a point that is escaping attention in some of our debates. The provisions in Clause 20 are not concerned with taxpayer information only. Clause 20 is necessary because of the prohibition imposed by Clause 18(1) that:
	"Revenue and Customs officials may not disclose information which is held by the Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Revenue and Customs".
	That is subject to exceptions. One of them, in Clause 18(2)(b), is that it is,
	"made in accordance with Section 20 or 21".
	I respectfully think that it would help, when considering what additional safeguards noble Lords are insisting on, to recognise that we are not just concerned with taxpayer confidentiality, which is subject to strict safeguards under the Bill. As I was trying to make clear during the debate on the previous amendment, we are also concerned with, for example, information discovered in the course of a law enforcement operation. Noble Lords have taken a view about who should have to give the authority in relation to that. The House has spoken. However, with regard to the present provisions, and the amendments that the noble Earl puts forward, I invite noble Lords to bear that point in mind.
	I need to deal with several points. The first is that which is raised by Amendment No. 9: to put on to the face of the Bill those provisions which are in the draft regulations. I start with the proposition that there is no difference between us: that those are all appropriate circumstances in which the public interest disclosure should be permissible. There is no point of principle: that we are proposing under the draft regulations a disclosure which goes beyond that which noble Lords think is appropriate. It is a matter of principle; they accept that. That is what I understand lies behind the amendment.
	Indeed, I understand that the amendment goes further. The amendment also accepts that it should be possible to add to that list not by primary legislation but by regulation. That is the effect of the noble Earl's amendment. There is no difference of principle between us about that either. In those circumstances, what is the justification for making this change to the Bill, putting something into it that we shall do in any event by regulation? The noble Earl says—and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Newby, supports him—that there is no disadvantage. There are disadvantages. With respect, I do not think that the noble Earl has seen what they are.
	First, by hard-wiring, if I may use that expression, into the Act itself those matters which were going to be in the regulation, the noble Earl is insisting on giving the Government a Henry VIII power for which they have not asked. He proposes that it should be possible to amend the primary legislation which sets out those public interest disclosures. The noble Earl shakes his head. But what then is the effect of subsection (1B)(b)? It states:
	"Disclosure is also in accordance with this section . . . if made—
	"(b) for a purpose of a kind specified in regulations made by the Treasury"—
	so he concedes that there should be a power to make regulations—
	"and such regulations may vary the provisions of subsection (1)".
	He is proposing that the Government should have the power to amend primary legislation by regulation. We have not asked for this power. It is somewhat ironic that the noble Earl, whose reason for putting forward the amendment is to increase parliamentary scrutiny, proposes one of the powers which always causes difficulties in this House, and rightly so: the power by regulation to change primary legislation. That is the first disadvantage.
	Secondly, I draw attention again to what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said on this clause. I note that it was clear that it did not consider the power to be inappropriately wide. It states that the affirmative procedure will provide an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for any proposals to add to circumstances in which disclosures may be made. Its views might have differed had this included the Henry VIII power that the noble Earl would now insist we took.
	Thirdly, we have placed a great deal of emphasis on the safeguards surrounding public interest disclosures, including criminal sanctions. But the noble Earl's amendment has managed to drop the criminal sanctions in relation to this set of disclosure provisions. The criminal sanction for unauthorised disclosure which exists in Clause 20(5) of the Bill is activated only by the making of regulations under Clause 20(4) and would not apply, therefore, to those things which are covered by what he now wishes to do.
	Finally, grateful as I am to see the enthusiasm of noble Lords for the Human Rights Act, I draw the noble Earl's attention to this fact. By putting these categories into primary legislation he prevents the courts taking a view, if they did in the future—we do not think for a moment that they will, but it is a question of power—because if they are in regulations the courts are able to strike them down as going too far. If they are in primary legislation, they are not able to do so. Far from enhancing the human rights protection, he has succeeded in taking part of it away. That relates to the first of the amendments.
	The effect of Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 is to return to the question of parliamentary procedure. With respect, I am disappointed to see that that issue has been returned to. Again, the regulation-making power has been examined by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which was satisfied of it. The committee said:
	"We do not consider the power to be inappropriately wide and we believe that the affirmative procedure provides an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for proposals to add to circumstances in which disclosure may be made".
	When the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has reached that view, I respectfully suggest that your Lordships should be slow to insist upon something which it has not proposed. It is the expert in this field and that is the conclusion that it has reached.
	Why is it right? It is right because there are strong safeguards in the act for taxpayer confidentiality. By imposing the affirmative procedure, Clause 20 makes sure that regulations which are passed should be subject to that degree of scrutiny. What more does the noble Earl want? He has picked up the reference in an entirely different Bill—the Identity Cards Bill—for a super-affirmative procedure. I remind noble Lords that the enhanced arrangements in the Identity Cards Bill apply to regulations that may be introduced to make registration for identity card purposes compulsory. In such a case, where practice subsequently develops beyond that applying when the primary legislation is introduced, it is quite right and proper that Parliament should have the chance for a more detailed study of the plans. But that is quite different in the case of the regulations. The policy behind these is absolutely clear and we all agree with it. The policy is that where there is a need for public interest disclosure that should be permitted so long as one defines with reasonable specificity what that public interest disclosure should be.
	The regulations made under Clause 20 cannot change that fundamental policy. It is an entirely different position from that in relation to the Identity Cards Bill. The position is inadequate and dangerous. First, it would require Parliament to consider new grounds twice. So if someone takes the view that there is a further real need for a public interest disclosure, Parliament is required to consider that twice. It is a relatively narrow thing that would be added and yet we have to consider it twice. I suggest that that is not a good use of parliamentary time. More than that, it would prevent HMRC reacting rapidly to emerging situations requiring a disclosure in the public interest.
	The noble Earl says to me, "But the Attorney-General said it would happen only sparingly". Yes, we do think that it will happen only sparingly but it may still happen in circumstances which need a quick reaction. I am afraid that events over recent years have all too plainly demonstrated that. It is no answer to say that although this may happen only sparingly we require a super-affirmative resolution; we require it to come twice to the House before we can make a sensible disclosure in the public interest—which is all that this clause can deal with. That could prevent any new regulations coming into force for 60 days and that could be a dramatic inhibition on doing something which is necessary to help or protect people in the public interest. It is only about the public interest. That is what this is all directed towards. So we would have the effectiveness of HMRC limited.
	Thirdly, and I know where the noble Lord, Newby, is coming from, the real point he makes is not so much that it happens twice but that it provides an opportunity for amendment. Amendment of what? If HMRC puts forward that there should be a further public interest disclosure category, what is the amendment going to be? It is not like the Identity Cards Bill where there will be much debate about the policy of making them compulsory.
	This is not the approach the House takes to resolutions which come before it. I recognise the argument that there is a case for saying that in future the power of this House to amend resolutions should be greater than it is at the moment. But that is not where we are. I really suggest to noble Lords that this is neither the Bill in which to make a change nor the place to debate the general policy.
	So, what is this matter ultimately about? It is about the ability of Revenue and Customs to make a disclosure in accordance with regulations where the Treasury is satisfied that it is in the public interest. We know the kind of thing that that is concerned with—preventing crime and disorder, on public health and preventing disasters, that sort of thing. I invite the noble Earl to recognise that to delay the ability to pass regulations is really not appropriate for this Bill.
	I know that the noble Earl is concerned about taxpayer confidentiality. I have been from the beginning of the passage of the Bill, as I am sure the noble Earl will recognise. The Bill contains some very strong safeguards. We have statutory prohibitions, criminal sanctions, prohibitions, and a requirement that you cannot just say, as you can at the moment, "It is in the public interest, therefore let it be disclosed". We want to have those specified. But to insist on going further in these circumstances is going too far. That is not because I disagree with the importance of confidentiality. I do not, although I remind noble Lords that this issue is much wider than taxpayer confidentiality. It is because the provision puts an unnecessary inhibition on the operation of the department by insisting that it takes place in this way. So I resist both sets of amendments.
	The noble Earl says that the Amendment No. 11 to leave out the provisions in subsections (7) to (9) would not be necessary if his other amendment were accepted. He is right to say that I am not aware of any specific regulations that would need to be brought in, if his amendment were accepted. But I need to have further thought on that.
	As the noble Earl knows, subsections (7) to (9) are absolutely essential in preventing the work of the department coming to a halt the moment the Act is passed. We are in entirely different territory from some of the debates that have taken place in this House. This is a Bill which already sets out very strong safeguards for the things about which noble Lords are concerned. It limits certain disclosures to those in the public interest; and it requires new categories to be added only if there is an affirmative resolution of the House. Surely that is enough. I urge the noble Earl not to press his amendment.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, in one sense this is the most animated debate that we have had so far today. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has managed to return to the aspect of the Bill that has caused him a great deal of interest, perhaps the most, since we started the debate. Now we have the punch-line of the interest.
	I can be very brief. I agree absolutely with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Sheldon on the importance of professionals acting in such a way that illegality and tax evasion is brought to the attention of the authorities. My understanding of the profession's own ethical standards demonstrates that there is an understanding of the need for that disclosure. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales states that:
	"A member should behave with integrity in all professional and business relationships".
	It goes on to say:
	"In certain circumstances information which would otherwise be confidential, will cease to be so if the information is such that disclosure is justified in the 'public interest', for example, where the employer has committed or proposes to commit a crime, fraud or misdeed".
	I trust that lawyers and tax professionals, practising and retired, will always act with the highest regard for the public interest. Whether they need the inducement of rewards to do so is an entirely different matter. As it happens, the Bill would permit such payments to be made. The merit of my not agreeing to the amendment is that that would not limit the possibility of rewards to those who are still practising. With the assurance that I would not want to discourage the commissioners from paying rewards where they thought it appropriate, even to practising or non-practising tax or legal advisers, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The central purpose of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill is to improve the local environment. The quality of our local neighbourhoods directly affects everybody's quality of life. It is the first thing that people think of when asked what makes the most important contribution to their environment or community. It also helps to create a clean, safe, green community—which helps the well-being and overall health of society.
	This Bill will help local communities—rural and urban—to create neighbourhoods where people are happy to live. That means cleaner, safer streets; well designed public buildings and spaces; welcoming parks and village greens, and countryside free of fly-tipped waste. The Bill is also a fundamental part of government strategy for dealing with anti-social behaviour. Dirty streets, burnt-out cars, graffiti and piles of fly-tipped rubbish are all evidence of the types of anti-social behaviour that directly affect how safe we feel in our own neighbourhoods. Indeed, they are closely to society as a whole. Their total cost amounts to over £3 billion to taxpayers and council tax payers.
	However, the true impact of the Bill is wider than this. We believe it will help to tackle the continuum of behaviour ranging from comparatively low-level environmental offences such as dropping litter and fly-posting, through to more serious damage; spraying graffiti, vandalism, property damage and very serious crime. To deal with crime effectively, we need to tackle the full range of criminal and anti-social behaviour. We must not ignore low-level offences, or allow a degraded local environment to give people the message that dropping rubbish, spraying graffiti and other anti-social behaviour does not matter.
	Hence, one of the Bill's key provisions recognises this link between crime and local environmental quality, by requiring crime and disorder reduction partnerships to tackle environmental crime where it is a priority in their area. This is already happening in some areas. We are not being prescriptive: where environmental crime is not such a problem, then it does not need to feature in their strategies. However, where there are problems, we expect local crime reduction partnerships to tackle them robustly. Our approach—which has been strongly endorsed by senior police representatives—will ensure that these local partnerships consider all the issues leading to crime and disorder in their community, including environmental crime.
	This measure, and others in the Bill, is the result of extensive consultations led by Defra over the past two years—including the "clean neighbourhoods" consultation last year. The measures respond directly to what local authorities and the Environment Agency have told us about the obstacles to enforcing existing legislation, why some provisions are difficult to use, and about changes that are needed if we are really to tackle anti-social behaviour and environmental problems effectively. I hope that the Bill provides common-sense solution to these problems, giving them the new powers and better tools that they themselves have asked for.
	To encourage better enforcement, the Bill increases the number of offences for which fixed penalties can be used as an alternative to prosecution. Greater use of fixed penalty notices should provide better value for money for the taxpayer. Local authorities can, sometimes, be reluctant to prosecute environmental crimes, as they find it expensive and time-consuming simply to go through the courts. They do not always recover all their costs, even when successful. Local authorities will be able to keep the receipts from fixed penalties. That is to help offset the cost of enforcing the legislation. They will be able to vary the amounts of most of these penalties to reflect local conditions—and to offer discounts for early payment.
	The Bill also gives new powers to parish councils so that the most local level of our democratic structures can play their part in creating cleaner, safer, greener communities. Parish councils—and community councils in Wales—will be able to issue fixed penalty notices for a range of offences relating to litter, graffiti, fly posting and dogs. These are local problems which parish councils are well placed to address-being only too familiar with them. It is true that not all parish councils will want this power, or indeed be able to take advantage of it. Yet others, with the necessary skills and resources, will welcome it.
	Another provision relates to the gating of highways that attract anti-social behaviour. They provide opportunities for crime, and we need to ensure we have the powers to deal with that. This will be particularly useful for those nuisance alleyways in some of our towns and cities. In this context, I am aware of the point made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and can clarify that this power is indeed also intended to deal with anti-social behaviour on highways other than just alleys: it is the behaviour, rather than the type of highway, that we are focussing on. In all these circumstances, gating will be reversible. Should local conditions improve or needs change, it can easily be reversed.
	Another problem is that of abandoned or nuisance vehicles. This Bill will help the Government achieve a reduction in the number of such vehicles that do so much to blight our communities. It will strengthen local authorities' powers to remove immediately abandoned vehicles from the streets and to reduce opportunities for arson and other forms of vandalism. It will also make it an offence to sell or repair cars on the road as part of a business.
	The Bill tackles the growing problem of litter with a wide range of measures. It will close a loophole in the current law to make it clear that dropping litter anywhere is unacceptable. Neglected areas of land such as the gardens of unoccupied houses can often attract large amounts of litter. The Bill will enable local authorities to make the owner or occupier of land that is heavily littered responsible for ensuring that it is cleared and to prevent the site reverting to a littered state. We will continue to encourage tough action against those who drop litter, but owners and occupiers themselves also have a responsibility to keep their land clear of large amounts of litter.
	Other litter measures include making street litter control notices, which deal with the litter generated by businesses such as fast food outlets, much easier to use. Local authorities will also be able to control the distribution of flyers and leaflets. The Bill clarifies that cigarette butts and chewing gum are litter and within the definition of the term. Thus it confirms, for the avoidance of doubt, that local authorities can take action against people dropping these materials. It also confirms that local authorities have a duty to clean streets of gum and cigarette butts, but it does not extend or add to that duty.
	The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 addressed the blight of graffiti through graffiti removal notices which this Bill will extend to cover fly-posting, alongside other measures to enable local authorities to deal more effectively with the fly-posting problem.
	Fly-tipping is a real and serious problem in both our towns and in the countryside. As well as degrading the local area, it can have environmental and health risks. We are providing a range of measures to strengthen the legislation and to increase the penalties for fly-tipping. This includes the problem of fly-tipping on derelict sites where an absentee landlord allows his land to be used as an illegal dump. Enforcement agencies will be able to require the landowner to remove the waste. But we will continue to protect responsible owners who are the innocent victims of fly-tipping, so this will be enforced only where there is no occupier on the land, and then only if the owner knew about or allowed the fly-tipping to happen.
	The Bill's fly-tipping measures will enable the Environment Agency and local authorities to deal more effectively and more immediately with those responsible for fly-tipping. We hope that this will send a strong message that fly-tipping is a serious environmental crime, and one which will not be tolerated.
	The Bill also gives local authorities greater flexibility to carry out their waste management obligations more effectively, and reforms the recycling credit scheme to bring it in line with current measures to encourage reuse and recycling.
	The Bill provides parish councils and district councils with new powers to control dogs, simplifying the current by-law system. It also gives local authorities sole responsibility for dealing with stray dogs. This provision has been welcomed by the police, and we have worked closely with the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA to ensure that the welfare of stray dogs is safeguarded.
	We are broadening the measures to deal with the nuisances caused by noise, insects and artificial lighting. Noise problems, such as from malfunctioning burglar alarms and badly sited security lighting can cause real problems for neighbours, while insect infestations arising from some activities—such as sewage treatment works—can make life a real misery for local people.
	The Bill contains a measure to put the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, the Government's champion in England for architecture and the design of public space, on a statutory basis. This changes CABE's status, but not its role or responsibilities, although it will enhance the body's accountability to Parliament.
	All the measures I have described are common sense and necessary. They address the day-to-day problems faced by many of our citizens. They have attracted widespread support among the groups we have consulted, as well as from the relevant enforcement agencies. For example, the Environment Agency is "strongly supportive" of these provisions, while the Local Government Association has said that it is,
	"delighted to see significant new powers for local councils".
	We believe that they will improve people's quality of life and provide opportunities for local authorities and other enforcement agencies to make life better for our citizens.
	This Bill is an integral part of the Government's strategy for improving the environment, for developing a more sustainable future and for dealing with anti-social behaviour. It responds to calls by individuals, groups, local authorities and enforcement agencies to be given the practical tools needed to promote cleaner, safer and greener communities.
	The Bill has been widely supported by all political parties both here and in another place and by stakeholders. I hope that it will be given a positive passage through the course of its proceedings in this House, although no doubt we shall have our usual interesting debates on certain aspects of its provisions. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition of the Bill and for the benefits that he expects it to bring. There is no doubt that in a sense it is a politically seductive Bill, provided that you do not look too closely. The real question is not whether this is a good Bill, but how good the Bill is and whether we can make it a better one. The answer to that, of course, is yes. The function of this House is to consider legislation, to pick up any problems, and to make improvements.
	Like the Minister, I express the hope that we will have the time to make that possible. I am sure that we shall have many interesting discussions about various aspects of the Bill. But we all acknowledge the position we are in, and we may not be granted that time. My feeling on that is that if we do not have enough time, it will be a disadvantage rather than an advantage. However, that is where we stand and there is nothing to be done about it. These matters are out of our hands, and perhaps that is just as well.
	The Minister has rightly pointed out that society already spends huge sums on the areas covered by the Bill. The Local Government Association reports that each year it collects some 30 million tonnes of litter from the streets. I find that rather hard to believe, but there it is. Figures that I have been given show that the cost of dealing with that litter is £450 million a year. Abandoned vehicles, which seem to increase year on year, currently cost £27 million a year to deal with. In 2002–03 some 310,000 vehicles were disposed of, making the cost of each disposal £830. One can only wonder at the validity of such a figure.
	The removal of graffiti in London is reported to cost £23 million per annum. That is not what is spent by local authorities, but what it costs London. However, that figure could be immensely inflated if one were to take into account the damage to property and the adverse effect on property values. London boroughs spend on average around £204,000 a year on the removal of graffiti. Across London that amounts to £7 million, but that sum bears no relationship to the actual cost of graffiti. Of course, much of it is cleared by property owners and so forth. For what it is worth, the authority in Newcastle estimates that every time it is called out to deal with a graffiti problem, it costs £100.
	The casual approach of society to this wretched matter of litter is already costing a great deal of money. Will the Bill help? In part it depends on the willingness of society to pay because the Bill imposes increased costs.
	The Government are a major contributor to local government expenditure. Some of us have taken part in the annual negotiations. They are always fraught with difficulty. There never seems to be enough money for local government to do the things that it ought to do; still less is there ever additional money to do the additional things that local government ought to do. Local councillors also come under pressure. We seem to have done away with capping, but it does not reduce the coercive pressure that is put on authorities to contain their expenditure within limits that governments think are acceptable.
	What does the Bill do? It provides a revenue stream to local government from the fixed penalty notices—I refer to a Defra figure, which the Minister will undoubtedly recognise—which is a little short of £5 million per annum, as far as it can be calculated. However, that is not really the purpose of the fixed penalty notices scheme. It seems to me that the real purpose is to provide a positive disincentive to people to chuck litter about, dump their cars and so on. However, that relies on enforcement to be effective. Who will carry out the enforcement? Clause 30(1)(a) refers to,
	"an employee of the authority who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving notices under section 43(1)".
	Clause 30(1)(b) refers to,
	"any person who, in pursuance of arrangements made with the authority, has the function of giving such notices".
	Clause 30(1)(c) refers to,
	"any employee of such a person who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving such notices".
	Who are these people? If they are not real people, they are nothing. I have given the matter some thought. Perhaps the Minister will come up with something more. I thought of environmental health officers but their work, generally speaking, is not out on the street, and it is out on the street that we need enforcement for these measures. Traffic wardens are out on the streets. That is fine, so long as people commit offences when the traffic wardens are around, which is mostly during the day. The police might be appointed to undertake this function, as if they have nothing else to do already. Community service officers are an adjunct to the police nowadays and no doubt some reinforcement there would help. However, the point I wish to make is that for fixed penalty notices to have a disincentive effect someone has to see someone commit the offence and book them at the time. That depends on having eyes on the street, the cost of which is unknown.
	The Second Reading briefing in another place mentions a Defra figure of £34 million as the additional cost of dealing with abandoned vehicles. ENCAMS reports a figure of an extra £342 million if street litter clearing notices are fully implemented. That depends partly on redefining the dropping of chewing gum as litter. The clearing of chewing gum appears to cost between 50p to £1.50 per square metre of pavement. Westminster City Council calculates that it will cost £9 million to clear its streets of chewing gum. If you start to multiply that, by the time you get to a national figure the figure which I have just mentioned is probably very conservative.
	The Environment Agency estimates that the cost of dealing with fly-tipping properly will increase by another £100 to £150 million. It is very difficult to estimate what the cost will be if local authorities take over responsibility for dog control. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the question of resource transfer from the police as the police will no longer have that function or responsibility which they at present enjoy, if that is the correct term. Proper cover has to be provided 24 hours a day. If that additional cost falls on local authorities without adequate resource transfer, council tax bills will come under severe pressure. Increasing council tax is not the most popular thing to do. We need to acknowledge that the Bill, with all its attractions, raises expectations, but that the cost must be recognised if the Bill is to succeed.
	I turn to the content of the Bill. I cannot help but observe that the clause concerned with litter clearing notices has an interesting list of exceptions. All the exceptions are dealt with under Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, the real problem that I have with this part of the Bill concerns who will police the Environmental Protection Act. The magistrates' courts can act on a complaint under Section 91 of the Act. There are litter abatement notices in Section 92 and street litter control notices in Section 93.
	I suspect that I am not an exception and that we all have our favourite offensive litter dump on a highway or a railway line which we notice as we travel about the countryside, which is patently not being dealt with under the present system. For the life of me I do not see why fixed penalty notices should not be issued in those circumstances to deal with the problem or at least to provide the owner of the site—the exceptions apply to public bodies of one kind or another which have a duty to keep their sites clean—with a reminder that they need to do that.
	A fixed penalty notice, which could be issued immediately, would at least be an immediate action on the part of a local authority. That local authority could tell another department of the local authority or another public body, "You are not fulfilling the duty that is laid upon you". Compliance applies across the whole of a commercial business. The compliance department is required to operate behind a Chinese wall so that it cannot be interfered with. It operates with absolute integrity across the business.
	My problem with litter clearance notices is that they are not applied widely enough. They ought to apply universally. If a public body—which is otherwise exempt under the Bill in this regard—commits an offence, something ought to be done about it. At the moment in my view the system is patently not working properly.
	I have a somewhat different problem with light pollution. We are all familiar with lights all over the countryside. Clause 102(4) contains a list of exceptions in that regard. The Minister and I have often argued about putting exceptions in Bills and about lists of exceptions being either too long or too short. I really think that it would be better if there were no exceptions at all. If we are looking for additional exceptions, horticulture is an obvious one, where controlled daylight is essential for the production of some horticultural crops. If you happen to live in the neighbourhood of a town, that can be difficult for the neighbours.
	The real problem with lighting is the huge waste of energy and therefore the huge waste of generating capacity and the possibility of the huge waste of carbon dioxide emissions to generate the electricity that is producing the offence. The Bill does nothing to attack that problem.
	I am happy to see a roundabout half a mile away from the front of my house in the dark, but I find it ridiculous when I turn around and look out of the back of my house to be able to count the individual traffic lights on a road junction six miles away. The same applies in principle to any industrial site or airport. Modern lighting can be directed at the area that needs to be lit. There is an example of a stretch of road near me that was recently redone. With the lighting on the road itself improved, the amount of lighting that was disappearing elsewhere reduced almost to zero, and you could not see the lights from any distance at all. Light pollution is a different problem; it is an environmental problem on a different scale and of a different nature. The Minister might say that my argument is not appropriate for this Bill, but, if we do not deal with it in this Bill, where do we deal with it? We have the opportunity to deal with it in this Bill.
	That is yet another problem, but there are a number of smaller problems with the Bill that I find fascinating. The Environment Agency can issue fixed penalty notices, but it cannot retain the revenue that it gets from them. That is not defined under the Bill, and it should be dealt with. Transport for London is responsible for a remarkably large part of London's road network, but it has no authority to issue fixed penalty notices on the roads for which it is responsible. Why not? It has the responsibility for the roads. That particularly relates to Clauses 3 and 4, which deal with parking "vehicles for sale" and the offence of making repairs to vehicles on the roads.
	Clause 50, which deals with the power to require the owners of land to remove waste, appears to be inconsistent with Clause 20, which deals with litter clearing notices. That should be taken care of. Clause 88(4) states that the Commission for Architecture has the power to provide advice,
	"whether or not it is requested to do so".
	That fascinates me. Clause 88(8) states that the commission,
	"may make charges in respect of any service provided by it".
	Can it make charges for services it provides that have not been asked for? It is not defined in the Bill, and we need to deal with that sort of thing.
	This is what I would call a prototype Bill. It is a good Bill, but it could be a better Bill. I hope that we have time to improve it.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I welcome the Minister, who has come down from his rural fastnesses to what I consider to be the real world of local backstreet politics. The Liberal Democrats gained control of our local council at the elections in June, and we had an all-day strategy meeting to decide what to do with this newfound local political power. The overwhelming view of everyone there was that there were two huge issues that we had to tackle: one was dog dirt and the other was litter—I welcome the Minister to the real world. I will try to remember to continue calling him "the Minister" and not "Councillor Whitty", although it is interesting that of the small number of people here today for this Second Reading debate a high proportion are either councillors or former councillors, who will know what I am talking about.
	On behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the House, I give the Bill a general welcome, although it appears likely that it will have an unsatisfactory passage through the House. There are a lot of detailed parts that those of us who think we know about such things in our little back streets would like to scrutinise rather more than we will be able to. Nevertheless the Bill, even if it has to go through the wash-up procedure, deserves to pass, and I hope that that will happen.
	Part 1 includes the question of gating orders. All those who have been involved in the provision of what are called "alley gates", or in our part of the world "backstreet gates" know that, where they are done properly with the consent of the people who live there, they can be beneficial. I hope that the provision, which can apply to highways in general, will not be used to block the rights of way that would be used by recreational users of the kind who were enthused by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which the Minister was instrumental in getting through the House. There is a question there about what will be done to prevent the occasional local authority misusing it in that way.
	Part 2 is about vehicles for sale and repair on the road. People who have looked at the Bill can see the potential problem with the limit of not less than two vehicles in a particular road. In other words, you can have one vehicle in a particular road for sale, but you cannot have two. What will be done to stop people abusing that by putting a series of cars at a crossroads, for example, where lots of different roads come together, or in other circumstances where one road turns into another and the name changes? Will regulations come out to prevent that kind of abuse?
	A great deal of the Bill is about litter and refuse. We welcome the extension of the litter control powers to all types of land, including water. The new litter clearing notices appear on the face of it to be a better way of doing things. Like everything else, it will all come out in the wash—or perhaps in the wash-up—and we will see whether it works in practice. It appears that what is being proposed here is a great advance.
	The Bill does not tackle the problem of waste minimisation and reducing the sources of litter, which get larger day by day. Everyone says that we have got to reduce waste and we have got to go in for waste minimisation. A large amount of packaging is used, whether on take-aways that people chuck away half-eaten in the street or sweet packaging or all the other sorts of packaging. The Bill is not about that, but it is worth making the marker here that the Government are still not tackling the problem adequately.
	There is a potential problem with the controls that will be available on the free distribution of printed matter. The exceptions are:
	"Where the distribution is for political purposes or for the purposes of a religion or belief".
	Will the Minister tell us what the definition of "political purposes" will be, and what the definition of "belief" might be? It may well be that those of us who hand out party political material for our sins—sad as we may be—will be okay, but what about people who are perhaps handing out material opposing a planning development or opposing the building of wind farms? They are taking a position on an issue that is not party political in that sense, but it is part of the local democratic process. Will they be caught by that? If they will be caught by it, there is a question of free speech.
	We welcome the inclusion of fly-posting in the definition of graffiti. At the moment, in the town in which I live, Colne in Lancashire, the main street is plastered with fly-posting for something that calls itself a local night spot—whatever that may be. I think it is just a pub that has music. The whole street is plastered with posters. It is very difficult to catch the people who put up that stuff, because they are simply local lads who are paid to do it. If we can approach and prosecute or put fixed penalty notices on the people who benefit from it, who are clearly behind it, that will be a great step forward. The beneficiaries of fly-posting really ought not to be able to get away with it as they do, so we welcome that part of the Bill.
	A great deal of the Bill is about fly-tipping. It is interesting; fly-tipping is merely a continuum of someone throwing a bit of litter away, to a plastic bag full of stuff, to a dustbin bag, ending with multiple lorry-loads. An excellent briefing that we had from the Environment Agency about the Bill told us that, throughout the country, more than 40 lorry-loads of stuff a day is fly-tipped. That is obviously dreadful. You can never find out who has done a great deal of the fly-tipping that takes place, because it is simply two or three dustbin bags or some builder's rubble that you cannot trace. The cost of clearing it up inevitably falls on the local authority, and it will never get it back. It is the kind of indirect cost on local authorities that a lot of people in local government think is not properly accounted for when the financial settlements come round.
	We certainly welcome the repeal of the divestment clause so far as waste disposal authorities are concerned, to free them from that restriction. That is sensible.
	The provisions in the Bill about dogs are almost entirely welcome. The suggestion that the multiplicity of confusing by-laws that there are around the country in relation to dogs will be replaced by dog control orders—they will be the same everywhere, so people will understand them—is a real step forward. The flexibility on penalties is welcome, although the local authorities involved will have very substantial costs in terms of staff and their training. One wonders whether the Government have taken that into account.
	The whole control and regulation side on dogs is only half the question. The other half of it—they have to go hand in hand—is that, if local authorities are to tackle the problem properly, they have to operate what might be called a dog waste service. Dog bins should be provided throughout the area. People should be able to use them. The bins would obviously have to be emptied and the dog dirt collected. In our experience, you must also provide people with free pooper-scoopers, as they are called, and the technical equipment to scrape the stuff up and take it away.
	This may not be the sort of stuff your Lordships normally talk about, but it is absolutely fundamental in keeping our streets clean. Although the provisions in the Bill are welcome so far as local authorities are concerned in giving them more powers, if local authorities want to do the job properly they have to do lots of things that are discretionary, so are not taken account of in the settlements. Nevertheless, they are essential if we are to have clean streets, parks, playgrounds and public spaces.
	I have two main qualifications about the Bill. I have touched on the first—local authority resources—already. The Minister might like to say something about it when he replies, although it is not his department that will divvy out what money is available to local authorities next year for this and everything else. It is a fundamental issue. Local authorities can do a brilliant job on litter, fly-tipping, graffiti, fly-posting, dog dirt and all the other matters, but they need the funding to do it, from one source or another. It is easy stuff to cut when you are really under financial pressures—when your budget has to be cut. They are the discretionary things on which it is all too easy to say, "We'll cut back this year and hope that we can do it again next year". That is no good.
	Alongside that, I hope that the regulations that will come out under the Bill in various ways will not be too prescriptive. Where there is room for flexibility, I hope that local authorities will be given it. There is a lot of good practice around at the moment, and a lot of scope for experimentation. Let us not use the regulations to control local authorities too tightly. This is exactly the kind of area where, if you let local authorities experiment with their own thing, you will get a lot of good practice that can then be copied by other people.
	My second general qualification is not to oppose the Bill in any way, but to make the point that rules and enforcement generally are not enough. They are necessary, and we welcome most of the provisions in the Bill, but they are not sufficient to turn our neighbourhoods in all parts of the country into clean, healthy, pleasant and well maintained places where people want to live. Neighbourhood by neighbourhood—it cannot be imposed from above—we need to build a culture.
	If the culture in the neighbourhood is that there is a lot of rubbish and graffiti; that the street furniture and the things for which the council is responsible are not maintained properly; that the streets are dirty and the lights are left out; that there is a lot of petty crime around, which is certainly connected with such poor environment; that everyone chucks rubbish in their front gardens and backyards, or next-door's backyards; that the public spaces are neglected; that there is a lack of social and community facilities, particularly for young people; that, if in an idealistic move two, three or four years ago people planted trees to improve the area, but half those trees have been vandalised and the council has not come round and replanted them and refused to give in to the vandals—if that sort of culture exists in the neighbourhood, there is no hope.
	If you see someone dumping rubbish in such an area, you cannot go up to them and say, "Excuse me, that's not what you should be doing". You can do that only if the neighbourhood is clean and there is not a culture of rubbish, because they will otherwise say, "Everybody else is doing it. Why shouldn't I?". If you want social controls, you have to build locally to have a neighbourhood that is not litter-strewn—where there are litter bins, so if you see someone dropping a fag packet, you can say, "Excuse me, there's a litter bin there", which nosy people like me do.
	If people allow their dogs to leave dog dirt on the pavement and there are no dog bins locally, it is much more difficult to persuade those people to clean up after their dog and take the dirt home. If the neighbourhoods are clean, there are litter bins, the public and private spaces are well maintained and things are replaced when they are broken, it is possible to build up even in the most difficult neighbourhoods a culture in which people look after their area. They look after their own property and the property around them. They then have the confidence and ability to influence other people and build a local culture of pride in their area.
	I have said before in the House that the Government have a huge number of initiatives from lots of departments, bodies, quangos and authorities, particularly in neighbourhoods that they consider disadvantaged. One is community policing, which is highly successful in the part of Lancashire in which I live. Others include: community support officers; neighbourhood wardens; all sorts of local networks and partnerships; outreach officers from the social services, the youth service and other departments; estate workers, perhaps from the housing department; and various community forums. All those people tend to do their thing individually. What is really needed in many places is to bring them together.
	That is not something for which the Government can legislate in a Bill such as this, but it is something with which parish councils can get involved, and particularly elected local councils and councillors at district level. You have a lot of councillors at that level not representing very many people—perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 each—so you have a low ratio of electors to councillors. Councillors themselves can get involved and help to build the kind of comprehensive neighbourhood management that is essential in such an area. I am talking about bringing together people with the ability, credibility and legitimacy, led by perhaps parish or district councillors or other key people in the community to co-ordinate everything that is going on in a place that is part of the housing market renewal pathfinder areas—which is a different context—in north-east Lancashire. As part of that we are getting funding for neighbourhood management.
	I am very optimistic and enthusiastic about that. I had better not say too much as people will start saying that I am praising the Labour Government, but praise where it is due. I am optimistic, and have to say that many of the Bill's provisions will be of great help in the work that we are trying to do on neighbourhood management. If it does not work, I shall come back and tell your Lordships, but I hope that I can say what a success it has been.
	There is general support for the Bill. I am disappointed, as is the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we shall probably not be able to discuss and worry-out the details of how it will work, which is the function of the House. Nevertheless, we wish it well.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, although I have never served as a local councillor, I have for the past four years chaired the New Deal for Communities programme in Liverpool in the Kensington area.
	It is not an exaggeration to say that it has been one of the most demanding yet instructive and inspiring experiences of my life, working with local people to make their neighbourhood a better place in which to live and work—in short, turning their neighbourhood back into a community.
	On behalf of local people working for the regeneration of their areas, I, too, welcome the Bill, both for its tenor and much of the detail. I can assure your Lordships that many of the measures will bring benefits to neighbourhoods.
	In Kensington, Liverpool and on Merseyside, some of those measures have already been piloted to great effect. Local strategies, led by partnerships of local people and statutory agencies, are already in place. For example, alley-gating, as has already been mentioned, and which I have seen, has turned dangerous back streets of terraced houses that were vulnerable to burglaries, prostitution and drug dealing into safer territory where elderly people especially feel more secure in their own homes.
	Furthermore, again working with the statutory services, involving local people in projects to clear their streets and keep them clean has restored to local people a sense of pride in where they live. The Government are to be commended on introducing legislation that assists local people who are keen to stay in and regenerate their neighbourhoods.
	That is what has impressed me about my involvement with New Deal for Communities. Observers often criticise inner-city and outer estate neighbourhoods for their poor record in voting in elections. But that low turnout at the polls has to be compared and contrasted with well-attended and, often, especially in Liverpool, feisty local meetings, where people turn out in their hundreds to talk about housing, schools and cleaner neighbourhoods. At one such meeting, I asked people to say how much time they had spent on local, voluntary, community activity. More than half the people at the meeting responded, saying that they had spent 10, 20 or 30 hours in the previous week. One of two of them said that they had spent 40 hours. At the end of the meeting, a young mother said that in the previous year she had been to 174 meetings, most of which lasted for three to four hours. When I informed a Minister, he rightly said, "That's a full-time job". Indeed, there are many people in such communities who work to that degree.
	They work on citizens' panels, neighbourhood planning groups, housing action groups, school governing bodies and local environment groups. In our cities and on outer estates, it is not an exaggeration to say that there are small dynamos of regeneration that will be well served by the legislation.
	Yet, a word of caution. We are at the outset of a major housing programme—especially the housing market renewal initiative with proposals for massive compulsory purchase and relocation of local people. My anxiety comes in a question to the Minister. Do the Government have a policy to keep within areas of regeneration the very people with a proven track record of serving their community? My worry is that with relocation, we shall remove from the neighbourhood the very people who are so vital to its regeneration—what pundits call the social capital.
	Renewing communities is not just about smartening the fabric but about giving confidence to local people to take the lead in shaping the future of their communities. Cleaner, greener, safer neighbourhoods need legislation. They also need local people who have the skills of survival and the commitment to both place and community.
	I warmly welcome the Bill and ask the Government to bear in mind that people as well as legislation make neighbourhoods clean and environments green. In short, people as well as legislation turn neighbourhoods back into communities.

Lord Cameron of Dillington: My Lords, I would like to approach the Bill from the rural perspective and I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner.
	In the past, litter and fly-tipping have all too often been seen as urban problems. I am keenly aware from my past experience that the regeneration of deprived urban neighbourhoods often has to start with a general clean-up, in order to create that sense of pride in the area you live in, to counteract the despondency and civic apathy that all too often exists when an area has taken on the appearance of an unofficial dump.
	However, fly-tipping has now reached epidemic proportions throughout our islands and most recently very noticeably in our countryside. Some of us have been quoting figures; my favourite one is that the local authority records seem to indicate that there are now 75,000 incidents of fly-tipping per month—that is, one incident every 35 seconds. Not all local authorities keep records and certainly not all incidents are reported. For instance, most farmers near me have been affected by fly-tipping in recent years and often they just clear up the mess and not report it.
	Nowadays, it is not only cookers, fridges, beds, mattresses and rubble that get dumped. There might be so-called commercial reasons for dumping such large items, or there might be misunderstandings, following the landfill tax, about what can be disposed of free of charge at the local tip. But what I cannot understand is that now black bags are being thrown out of cars, splitting and spreading their household detritus all over the countryside. Is it not cheaper and less trouble to wait for the weekly free domestic collection than it is to drive out into the countryside and throw it away? Or maybe there are some councils which limit the amount of waste they will accept?
	In the same way as urban civic pride starts with a clean neighbourhood, this is doubly so of our precious countryside. So I genuinely support the Bill. I am glad that littering and fly-tipping will be treated as serious crimes; that dumped cars are going to be speedily removed; and that initiatives such as "Flycatcher" are going to make it more difficult to pollute our countryside.
	Actually, policing the pollution of our countryside by litter and fly-tipping is not such an insurmountable task as it would at first appear. In my experience, in the same way as there are favourite places locally to have a picnic, so there seem to be favourite places to get rid of old bedsteads or whatever. For the farmers whose gateways, footpaths and bridleways are thus continually desecrated, it is extremely disheartening. As an aside, most farmers cannot take much more disheartening at the moment.
	This leads me on to the one point of opposition I have to the Bill. As has already been mentioned, in Clause 20 material changes appear to be being made to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It seems to be the Government's intention that litter authorities should be able to serve litter-clearing notices on owners and occupiers of land without them having the defence that the material was fly-tipped. Has the Bill been rural-proofed? As far as the countryside is concerned, this is wrong. Is fly-tipping the fault of the farmer?
	The Bill goes on to provide that in the litter-clearing notice the litter authority may specify steps to be taken to prevent future defacement. I understand that those steps will usually involve measures to keep people off the land in question—fencing and so on—again at the expense, in the countryside, of the farmer. The message seems to be that the farmer is at fault for allowing people on to his land.
	I put it to noble Lords that fly-tipping is a problem for society and is indeed exacerbated by fiscal policies, policies on landfill and even local waste collection policies, however otherwise appropriate they might be. I also put it noble Lords that all too often the sites that get littered are those to which the public has easy access; for example, the start of bridleways, footpaths and byways open to all traffic. They cannot, and should not, be made alien to the public. Thus while elsewhere the Government rightly try to encourage access to the countryside, here they seem to be taking a different view, or at least wiping their hands of the consequences.
	As has already been pointed out, Clause 20 differs from Clause 50, which deals with controlled waste. In that clause, there is a much more sensible process whereby an occupier can appeal the notice if he neither deposited nor knowingly caused nor knowingly permitted the deposit of the waste. That would seem to be an entirely reasonable defence, which should also apply to Clause 20.
	Politically, as far as the countryside is concerned—I recognise that there may be a different set of circumstances in towns—I think Clause 20 is a blunder. If the Government wish farmers to be entirely hostile to the visiting public, then by all means make them the public's pooper-scoopers free of charge to the public purse. I think that would be a huge mistake.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I do not know if I am stopping the Minister before he gets there, but the important query that I raised was about how members of the general public would know which authority deals with their problem, and in what way. In other words, whom do they contact?

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to bring this House a measure to contribute to the care of our cathedrals, which must surely be some of the most splendid jewels in the crown of our country's built heritage. Although the measure is complex, and parts of it are highly technical, your Lordships will see that the Ecclesiastical Committee was satisfied that it was expedient. The committee was able to set out its conclusions in a very brief report.
	I am glad to say that I can explain the general object of the measure, and how it seeks to achieve it, quite briefly and without getting involved in the legal complexities. Noble Lords will find the details fully set out in the material from the legislative committee of the General Synod, which is reproduced in the Ecclesiastical Committee report.
	Many of your Lordships will know that for centuries parish churches and their treasures have been safeguarded by the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Because of concerns that that jurisdiction did not extend to cathedrals, the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 set up a comparable system. Under it, a cathedral must obtain consent for significant works to the cathedral itself, for some other works that would affect its setting or the cathedral precinct, and before important articles belonging to the cathedral are disposed of or acquired. Major proposals go to a national body, the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England, for approval. Other proposals are dealt with by the fabric advisory committee for the individual cathedral. The measure also deals with such matters as the cathedral inventory and the responsibilities of the cathedral architect.
	A review commissioned in 1997 by what is now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport found that, in general, the system was working effectively. However, the Church had already agreed to carry out its own review of the new controls once they had been in force for a few years. It carried out very wide-ranging consultations, which included the cathedrals, those who hold office in them, Church bodies, professional organisations and heritage bodies, such as English Heritage and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. The review group also invited, and received, submissions from the general public. The review group agreed that the system was working well, but it came up with a number of detailed recommendations for minor changes in the legislation. Again, it consulted widely on its proposals before bringing them to the Synod.
	Just to give your Lordships a flavour of the kind of changes that the review group proposed, and which were then embodied in the measure, I shall mention three examples. One of them extends the controls over cathedral treasures, which already applied to disposals, to any significant work on them that could affect their essential character. Another consists of changes to the detailed procedure for notices when the cathedral applies for approval under the measure.
	A third example relates to the definition of the "precinct" of the cathedral. This is a key concept under the 1990 measure because it is important that the whole complex of the land and buildings of which the cathedral forms part should be looked on as a whole. Here the measure expends the 1990 provisions on how the boundaries of the precinct are to be fixed and allows for them to be changed if, say, the cathedral acquires additional land.
	Your Lordships will see from this that the changes go only to the detail of the 1990 measure and not the principles and objectives which underlie it. The Synod accepted that almost all were completely non-controversial and it passed the measure with not a single contrary vote. In that sense, the measure is a modest one. Nevertheless, it will make a genuine contribution towards helping the arrangements for the care of our cathedrals to work even better. I commend the measure to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Care of Cathedrals (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Liverpool.)

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the regulations are made under Section 103D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as inserted by Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Section 103D makes provision for the High Court and the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal to order payment of an appellant's costs for a review of an AIT decision and any pursuant reconsideration out of the Community Legal Service Fund.
	These regulations establish the statutory framework for these new arrangements and prescribe the precise circumstances in which costs can be paid. The funding code is being modified under Section 9 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. The regulations and the funding code are subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
	I should first explain why we are making these regulations. The new arrangements are being introduced to combat abuse of the appeals process and reduce the number of weak applications being pursued through the system. That is imperative to ensure that we increase speed and efficiency in the asylum and immigration system and target public money and resources on those who are genuinely in need. Asylum seekers have no disincentive to withdraw from the system, regardless of how weak their case, because remaining in the country is their primary goal. Onward appeals and further challenges are ways for people to buy time, which means that there is always an advantage to lodging another application. That is evidenced by the figures; between 2003 and 2004 approximately 30,000 decisions were made in asylum cases on permission applications to the Immigration and Appeal Tribunal. Of those decisions, only 33 per cent resulted in permission being granted. The remaining 67 per cent of applications were dismissed.
	So instead of focusing on the asylum seeker, what we are doing with the new legal aid arrangements is disincentivising the representative. We are introducing an element of risk, which is that if a representative chooses to pursue a weak case they risk not being paid for their work. This is a proportionate response to the problems of tackling abuse within the appeals system and one which strikes the right balance between discouraging weak cases while securing access to justice for genuine claimants.
	We announced our decisions on the scheme on 24 February 2005. We have made a number of changes to our original proposals after carefully considering the responses to the public consultation. I shall now briefly take noble Lords through how the scheme will work and the key provisions in the draft regulations. The new arrangements will apply only to the review and reconsideration of appeals under new Section 103A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, inserted by Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, and only if the application was made by the appellant. The arrangements will not apply to all other stages of the appeals process, including the original appeal to the AIT and any appeal to the Court of Appeal, applications made by the Home Office; and fast track proceedings.
	Additionally, the arrangements will not apply to the representative's initial advice to the appellant on whether to apply for a review of the tribunal's decision. That will be funded as part of controlled legal representation for the original appeal. That will ensure that every appellant has the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to challenge the tribunal's decision. The representative will have devolved powers to grant representation, and that will be based on the test that the tribunal judge will apply when deciding whether to make an order for costs in an unsuccessful case. Successful cases will always be funded.
	The test is whether the tribunal is satisfied that at the time that the Section 103A application was made there was a "significant prospect" that the appeal would be allowed on reconsideration, which is set out in regulation 6. If the representative thinks that the appellant's case does have significant prospects of success and agrees to provide representation, the review application will be considered in the first instance by the AIT acting on behalf of the High Court, under what is being described as the "filter" stage. If the application is dismissed, the applicant can opt for the High Court to consider the application, which is the "opt-in" stage. At the review stage, the tribunal and the High Court will share similar powers to award costs. Those powers will extend only to awarding costs for the review application and will be exercisable only in limited circumstances.
	If an application is successful, a reconsideration will be ordered. If a case is successful at the reconsideration stage and the appeal decision is overturned, then costs must be awarded. If a case is unsuccessful and the appeal decision is upheld, then costs may be awarded. The tribunal will have to apply the prospects of success test, which is that it must be satisfied that at the time when the appellant made the Section 103A application, there was a significant prospect that the appeal would be allowed on reconsideration.
	It will be for the judiciary to interpret the regulations and what "significant prospect" means, and I cannot pre-empt what that interpretation might be. However, I can clarify the Government's intention. The purpose of the scheme is to reduce the number of weak cases moving through the appeals process and to discourage unmeritorious challenges to tribunal decisions. If an application is unsuccessful at the review stage, it will usually be because it lacked merit, and therefore we would not expect costs to be awarded. However, if an application is successful and the representative has acted in good faith, that would mean that the case had merit. In those circumstances, we would expect costs to be awarded. Every case must be dealt with on an individual basis, but representatives who pursue meritorious cases can expect to be paid.
	I also assure noble Lords that an unsuccessful outcome at the reconsideration will not automatically lead to costs being refused. That is not how the scheme has been designed. The test that the tribunal must apply will be based on the prospects of success and the information that was available to the representative when the application was made. That is a specific requirement of the test in Regulation 6(3), because we realise that representatives cannot make an assessment of a case's prospects of success based on information that they do not have.
	If, following the reconsideration of an appeal, the tribunal refuses to award costs, that decision can be challenged on a written application for review. Both the representative and counsel instructed by the representative will have the right to apply for a review of the decision to refuse costs. That review will be conducted by a different senior immigration judge to the judge or composition of tribunal members that made the decision on funding.
	I have briefly outlined the substantive provisions of the regulations. I shall turn briefly to the consequential changes to the funding code that we have laid before Parliament arising from the commencement of the AIT on 4 April 2005. Amendments to sections 2.4 and 13.1 of the funding code criteria replace references to proceedings before the immigration adjudicator and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal with the asylum and immigration tribunal or the High Court in relation to review applications. I commend the draft order and revised funding code to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the regulations are made under Section 103D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was inserted into that by Section 26 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
	During the debate in this House on the then 2004 Bill, we on these Benches objected strongly to Section 103D. On Report, I said that if the High Court had ordered reconsideration under Section 103A, legal aid should be granted automatically for reconsideration by the tribunal. I said that it was essential that the appellant's lawyer get legal aid in such circumstances, and that "no win, no fee" funding was completely inappropriate for such litigation, with potentially disastrous consequences for an asylum seeker wrongly sent back. We would have accepted, somewhat reluctantly, that there would be a possibility of "no win, no fee" arrangements on the application to the judge for reconsideration but, once the judge had decided that there should be reconsideration, there was no case left for saying that, at the full reconsideration, there should in any circumstances be no legal aid.
	What the Government propose in the regulations is unnecessary in relation to reconsideration, because a series of filters is already in place to screen out the hopeless cases. The Legal Services Commission applies quality controls to firms conducting publicly funded immigration work, so if they start taking hopeless cases they will lose their funding. All review applications are subject to a controlled legal representation merits test, which means that the applications must be at least reasonably arguable to qualify for legal aid. From 4 April next year, all lawyers doing publicly funded immigration work will have completed a rigorous accreditation process.
	In cases where the High Court has ordered reconsideration under Section 103A, the judge will have decided that the case has sufficient merits to justify reconsideration. If the judge has decided that, it must surely be wrong to withhold legal aid.
	We are as opposed today as we were when we debated the Bill a year ago to the Government's extension of the no-win-no-fee practice to reconsideration under Section 103A, which is wrong in principle and creates a dangerous precedent. We have to accept that the Bill is now law and that this issue was fully debated during its passage through your Lordships' House.
	The power to make provision for costs dependent on the prospects of success is in Section 103D(5) of the Act. We therefore reluctantly accept that we cannot oppose the order in principle.
	I have a number of questions to ask the noble Baroness. First, I understand from a briefing we have received from the Law Society that at a meeting on 11 March a DCA representative stated that legal aid will be granted in all cases when reconsideration is ordered even if the application is ultimately unsuccessful, unless there has been dishonesty by the legal aid supplier in representing the grounds for the review. Can the Minister confirm that? If so, why is that important and welcome decision, if it is a decision, not on the face of the Bill?
	The significant prospect of success test is, as the Minister said, a matter for interpretation by the judge or tribunal considering whether or not to make an order for costs. The judge or tribunal will not be bound by the views of the DCA. It would surely therefore have been better if they were bound under the terms of the order.
	The second question is somewhat detailed. What is the reason for the distinction between Regulation 5(4) and Regulation 6(3)? Regulation 5(4) applies to the costs of unsuccessful applications to the High Court for an order for reconsideration. Regulation 6(3) applies to the costs of unsuccessful reconsideration following the making of an order by the High Court. Both of these require that before legal aid can be awarded there must have been a significant prospect at the time of the application that the appeal would be allowed on reconsideration. But Regulation 5(4) requires that there should have been an intervening change in the circumstances or the law since the application was made. Why is that?
	If the judge feels, for example, that the application for an order for reconsideration only just fails and did have a significant prospect of success, why should there be a requirement for a change in circumstances or the law as well?
	My third question is that in civil no-win-no-fee cases, a mark-up above the normal rates of charging is allowed. There is nothing in the regulations about mark-up. However, will it be provided for by the contract between the Legal Services Commission and the supplier referred to in Regulation 81? If so, at what rate?
	Those are the points that I wish to make, and I shall listen to the Minister's answer with interest.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. I recognise that we are at the end of a long process with a great deal of debate around these issues. That is very interesting for me because I also have ministerial responsibility in this area.
	I shall start by trying to say something about the significant prospects of success. I do not by any means equate this issue with "no win, no fee" because there will be circumstances when unsuccessful cases do indeed receive the funding that we all agree they deserve. We have sought to look across a system that clearly has considerable problems within it. As I indicated in my opening remarks, there is no incentive whatever for an applicant to do anything other than continue to pursue his case. We must try to think about how to make a system which genuinely deals with those who have real claims and which disincentivises—in this case, suppliers—from continuing with claims that have no merit.
	We have sought with the filter to make it clear that we are concerned with those cases that have merit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that we want to ensure that genuine claimants remain in this country. We have a long and proud tradition of that and we wish to uphold that. But we also want to ensure that the evidence presented at that time is all that it could be.
	So the purpose of the judges at the end of the case having the opportunity to say that they will review the information and the case before them, and to interpret significant prospects of success, is because I have great faith in the judiciary. We have very deliberately within the DCA—and I as a Minister—not attempted to give percentages or anything else to the judiciary. It would be wholly wrong to do that. It is for the judiciary to interpret and review the evidence that comes forward and finally to answer the question whether the information that the supplier provided at the beginning amounted to a case that has significant prospects of success—win or lose.
	So it is not a "no win no fee". It is not a circumstance where we have put figures on it. It is not where I or any other Minister dictates what would happen. It is the case that I would expect that a number of those who come forward who are unsuccessful would indeed receive funding, and we have built in the opportunity to challenge that, which is right and proper.
	But the regulations are trying to set out very clearly that our purpose is to ensure that cases come forward where there is genuinely a strong belief that there are significant prospects of them being successful. That is very important when you look at this, as I do as a non-lawyer, as a system that clearly has pressure points within it that we need to address. We believe that we have the balance within that right. That is the basis upon which you have both the filter and ultimately the judge at the end of the case looking again to ensure that that has happened.
	I do not know what comments were made on 11 March. I think, as I have indicated, that a number of cases that were not successful will come through, but it is for the judiciary to determine. As noble Lords will know, we arrived at significant prospects after a great deal of consultation and careful consideration. But I am not suggesting that we should expect the judiciary to have that interpretative bias in any way, shape or form. It is a matter for them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about the mark-up. The mark-up has been altered from 25 per cent—which is what we originally proposed—to 35 per cent for these cases. In addition, if there is a particularly complex case with perhaps a senior legal representative or senior barrister involved, there is the opportunity to go back to the Legal Services Commission and argue for more resources to be made available.
	We do not expect there will be many, if any, instances of dishonesty: the majority of cases will be paid. I was hoping to get an answer on a particular point asked by the noble Lord and I will see whether that arrives. To answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, we believe that the system requires a special regime. I did not put a figure on it; 75 per cent has been bandied around. That was a figure that I was pushed on by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. That does not mean I agreed with it—I simply did not respond to it because I felt it was wrong for me to give any indication of what I would consider significant prospects of success.
	I am looking for a system that removes the 65-week timetable—which is what we currently have—to what we hope will be a 32-week timetable for applicants; 36 weeks perhaps in very complicated cases. That will enable us to give justice more quickly and more appropriately to those in need of it.
	Much has been made of what will happen with regard to the supplier base. I can only say at this stage that regarding the asylum and non-asylum contracts—both with solicitors and not-for-profit contracts—comparing 2003–04 with 2004–05, in all cases the latter figures are currently above the figures for 2003–04. That does not mean that I am in any way, shape or form complacent about our need to have extremely good legal representation for those individuals. Therefore I can commit to your Lordships' House that I will be looking very carefully to ensure that the system that we have in place enables us to provide high-quality legal advice for those who need and deserve it. I believe that the system will do that. At present, despite what has been said about stakeholders pulling out, there is no evidence to suggest that that will happen.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why Regulation 5(4), the test at review stage, is stricter than Regulation 6(3), the test at reconsideration. At the review stage, as the noble Lord will realise, if the judge thinks that there is a significant prospect of the appeal being allowed on reconsideration, he will order a reconsideration. So the case falls under Regulation 5(2), not Regulation 5(4). If a reconsideration is not ordered, the intention is that funding will not normally be granted. Regulation 5(4) serves the limited purpose of ensuring that a representative who brings a meritorious case will get funding if some change of circumstances means that a reconsideration is not ordered. That is the reason for the difference between those two regulations.
	I believe that we have struck the balance that we need to strike to ensure that cases that have merit go forward and that we serve those individuals as well as we possibly can. It also allows us to disincentivise a system that at present incentivises only the pursuance of cases.
	I accept all the work that the Legal Services Commission has done with suppliers to ensure that they are of the highest possible quality. I pay tribute to the work of many of the suppliers. The system ensures that we get the balance to enable us to provide justice as speedily as possible. As I have already indicated, if I have one ambition it is that we reduce the length of time that people in the system have to wait to get the justice that they deserve. I have already committed to ensuring that we look after, and look over, the process and that we work closely with the LSC, the judiciary and suppliers to ensure that the system works effectively. I commend the regulations to the House.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: rose to move, That the revised funding code laid before the House on 9 March be approved.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I spoke to this Motion in the previous debate. I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.
	Tuesday 22 March 2005